Nabuchodonosor of the Canon, a clear and distinct coincidence. On the other view, the one Nebuchadnezzar of Scripture is resolved into two persons, and these are the Cyrus and Cambyses of the Canon, whom it places seventy years after Nabuchodonosor. On the common view Evil Merodach answers to Ilverodamus in place and time; on the opposite theory he comes ninety years later, and is a satrap or rival of Artaxerxes Longimanus. On the common view Coresch answers to Cyrus, a correspondence both of name and character, for Coresch is the most noted in Scripture, and Cyrus in profane writers. On the opposite system Coresch is a satrap of Babylon in the time of Pericles, whom the heathen writers entirely forgot to notice.

On the other hand, the supposed gain is in the three coincidences, Darius the Mede-Darius Hystaspes, Xerxes=Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes Ezr. vii.=Artaxerxes Mnemon. Of these the first is no coincidence, but a contrast. For the main feature of Darius Hystaspes, in profane writers, is, that he was not a Mede, but a Persian, who overthrew a Median usurper, and restored the Persian dynasty. Here is direct opposition, and not resemblance, even in title.

The next depends on the supposition that Xerxes and Ahasuerus are strictly equivalent. But this is disproved by Scripture. For the Darius of Dan. ix. must on the above theory be either Darius Hystaspes or Darius Nothus. But the Scripture Darius is son of Ahasuerus. Now neither Darius Hystaspes nor Darius Nothus, was the son of a Xerxes, but one, the son of Hystaspes, and the other of Artaxerxes. The opening, also, of the book of Esther, implies that there were at least two Ahasueruses of note in history. Now it is certain that there is no Xerxes of any note but one; for the second Xerxes reigned only two months, and is omitted entirely in the Canon, and scarce ever mentioned. It is absurd to suppose the explanation Esth. i. to be designed only to exclude this two-month sovereign. This second correspondence is therefore illusive.

The only gain, therefore, is here, that two Artaxerxes of Scripture are made to correspond with two in the Canon, instead of one only. Its force will depend on two points, whether Artaxerxes were strictly a proper name, and not a royal title, and whether the length of the reign confirms or disproves the double correspondThe two schemes are these:

ence.

Artaxerxes, Ezra iv. = Smerdis
Artaxerxes, Ezra vii. = Longimanus

=

Artaxerxes Longimanus. = Artaxerxes Mnemon.

Now the objection to the first would have weight, if no king

bore the name of Artaxerxes but those to whom it is given in the Canon, and if it were never assumed on accession to the throne. But the reverse is true. Ochus does not bear the name in the Canon; but in Diodorus we learn that he was called Artaxerxes Ochus. Again, the name of Artaxerxes Mnemon himself was Arsaces, and he assumed the title Artaxerxes with the crown. We have seen that Ochus did the same. If then the Canon had dealt with Mnemon as with Ochus under the very same circumstances, the superiority of the new system, on this third count, would have vanished entirely. The only license, in the common system, amounts to the supposition that Smerdis did, what Arsaces and Ochus did afterwards, and assumed the name Artaxerxes with the sceptre. His violent overthrow will account easily for its disappearance, since neither Darius nor the later Persians would acknowledge his claim to the title.

Thus, on the very point where it claims so great a superiority, tha new theory is found wanting. It sacrifices three plain coincidences, two of which are of the highest importance, hinges of the whole history. It proposes three in their stead, of which one is a contrast, for Darius the Mede can never be Darius the overthrower of the Medes; and one is illusive, for there are two or three Ahasueruses of note, and only one Xerxes. Even on the third point, we have only to suppose in the case of Smerdis what is certainly true of Arsaces and Ochus, and the imaginary advantage of the new hypothesis disappears entirely.

The argument, however, has been strengthened by an illusive parallel with modern times, when kings are commonly distinguished by adding a numeral to their names. "The second-mentioned Artaxerxes is Artaxerxes the First. The second-mentioned Darius is Darius the First." But the objection, in this form, has no real ground, and its effect is merely to perplex and delude the inquirer. Perhaps no example can be found in ancient times, where kings were thus identified by an ordinal term. Certainly no instance occurs either in Scripture or the Canon. On the contrary, we have many examples, both in sacred and profane history, of two names to the same monarch. Hence a more deceptive method for identifying the kings in two series of independent history could not well be discovered. Thus, according to the accidental choice of a name, we might identify Artaxerxes Mnemon with Ochus, or Darius Nothus with Darius Codomannus; or might identify Darius Nothus, in turn, with Darius Hystaspes, with Ochus, or with Darius Codomannus. We should only have to select properly among the admitted names of cach. Let us frame, for example, three lists:

Here, from the two first lists, the title of Darius the First will identify Darius Nothus with Darius Hystaspes; in the first and fourth, Darius the Second would identify him with Darius Codomannus; and in the third and fourth, Ochus the First would identify him with the Ochus of the Canon. The only result, then, of such a line of argument must be to produce incalculable confusion. And thus comparing the whole, the gain of the new system, in the first Artaxerxes, is almost imperceptible, and its loss, in the three leading reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, and Darius the Mede, fatal and ruinous to its very foundations.

A second argument has been drawn from the captivity of Mordecai, to prove that Esther reigned before the seventy years were expired. The words are "Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah King of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away. And he brought up Hadassah, his uncle's daughter." The question arises, was Mordecai or Kish the person carried away captive? His Grace argues for the former view. "Universal testimony (of Jewish historians) is in support of Mordecai being the captive. The Greek additions to Esther assert it. Munster, Pagnin, Vatablus, Arius Montanus, Tremellius translate in this way. It is senseless to admit a long parenthesis respecting Kish in the midst of the narrative concerning Mordecai." Many other authorities are specified, who take this view. The promise was given to Jeconiah's captivity that they should return. The name of Mordecai, and not of Kish, does occur in the list with Zerubbabel. "Where in a small community, two or three historians, contemporary nearly with each other, speak each of a person of note of the name of Mordecai, the presumption is very strong in favour of his being the same person. Willet justly observes, you might as well say that Moses is not Moses, as that Mordecai (in Esther) is not Mordecai (in Ezra.)—Having set aside this evasion, the evidence from the text of Esther, the ancient Jewish authorities, and the judgment of unprejudiced individuals, makes it most highly probable, that not Kish but Mordecai went into captivity. The important consequence is, that the history of Esther must have been during the captivity."

In the face of these authorities, to which others perhaps more numerous might be opposed, we think it clearly provable from the text itself, that Kish, and not Mordecai, was the captive. There are three plain objections to the other view. First, the words, a Benjamite, become quite useless. If Mordecai's descent were traced to the well-known Kish, the father of Saul, it would be plain of itself that he was a Benjamite. The words, if used at all, ought in this case evidently to have preceded the genealogy. Secondly, the genealogy itself becomes unmeaning. For there were two distinguished Benjamites of the name of Kish, one of them the brother of Ner, and the other his son. To close the genealogy in this manner, without any mark to shew the Kish really intended, would be most unnatural. Why not carry it one step further, to Gibeon, or to Ner, and thus make it really distinctive? Thirdly, the genealogy is then useless for a second reason. There would be about fifteen generations from Kish, the father of Saul, to Mordecai, and still only three are mentioned. If these were well-known names, there might be a plausible excuse for the omission; but neither Jair nor Shimei is named elsewhere; for Shimei the son of Gera, and Shimei the son of Kish, are plainly different persons, as are also Jair, a Benjamite, and Jair the Gileadite. Thus the genealogy on this view becomes quite useless. It neither decides from which person called Kish, Mordecai was descended, nor how many generations intervened: nor are the intermediate names those of well-known persons, the only reason why two, out of fourteen or fifteen, should be selected.

On the other view, all is consistent and natural. Mordecai was really three generations distant from Kish, and the links are accurately and fully given. The genealogy is traced up to the captivity for a plain reason, to account for Mordecai's actual condition. Since the name Kish had been common to many, he is first distinguished by his tribe, a Benjamite. Since there were two Benjamites of that name, the father and great uncle of Saul, and possibly others, he is further marked by the time when he lived he was one of Jeconiah's captivity. Since Babylon was now fallen, and Persia had the rule, this change of dynasty is brought out clearly by the further explanation-whom Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, carried away. Thus all is clear, fixed, and definite, and every word is found in its right place, and retains its natural meaning. Mordecai is really the son of Jair, and Jair of Shimei, and Shimei of Kish. The last is defined to be a Benjamite, as the position of the words requires. He is also distinguished from the two earlier and more noted Benjamites of that name, by his actual captivity with Jeconiah.

The interval also exactly agrees on the common view. If Kish were twenty years old at his captivity, and Mordecai sixty in the seventh of Ahasuerus, a probable estimate in either case, the difference of their ages, with the three generations, at the usual average, will make 140 years. But from Jeconiah's captivity a.c. 598 to the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus, is precisely 140 years by the actual dates. The harmony could not well be more complete.

"The supposition," his Grace observes, "that the decree of Artaxerxes was obtained through the influence of Esther is an anachronism, for Ezra started with the decree in the first month of the seventh year. The plot against the Jews was in his twelfth year, and Esther did not make known her kindred till after this time."

In

Now in fact this supposed objection, when examined more closely, leads to an argument, almost amounting to demonstration, that the Ahasuerus of Esther, and Artaxerxes Longimanus are the same, as both Josephus and the Septuagint version suppose. At the first glance, all connexion seems impossible between Ezra's decree and Esther's promotion; for the decree was on the first month of the seventh year; while Esther was received into favour only in the tenth month of the seventh year of Ahasuerus, and did not reveal her kindred till the twelfth year. But let us examine the dates more closely, with the word of God for its own key. Neh. i. we read that Nehemiah, in the month Chisleu, or ninth month, of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, received the news of the desolate state of that city," and mourned certain days and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven." After this, we are told in the next chapter," in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king," he made his request and obtained permission to go unto Judah. Hence it is plain that the month Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes was later than the ninth, and therefore later than the tenth month of the same year of the king; or his accession was between the first and ninth Jewish month. What was true in the twentieth year of the king, would be true in the seventh also. Hence, if Ahasuerus be Artaxerxes, Esther, who was received into favour, and taken into the royal house, in Thebeth, the tenth month of the seventh year, was thus exalted exactly two months before the commission of Ezra, in the first month of that same, or seventh year. What undesigned coincidence can be more complete? The monarch, in that first gush of affection and joy, " made a release to the provinces, and gave gifts according to the state of the king." Though Esther still concealed her kindred, she would not fail to use all her influence in favour of Ezra's request; and the terms of the decree answer precisely to